Go to page

Go to page

Member

they showed her in the video, that was the moment that was nostalgic. I personally thought Tyrell bringing out a clearly fake rachel did disservice to the story. The almost comical clippity clop of her heels on the tiles for the big reveal. Did they expect deckard to fall for it? Not even the point that her eyes were the wrong colour makes any sense. Deckard of all people knew she died and worked to hide the baby.

Member

I just got out. Villeneuve had the opportunity to flesh out a world we've only seen before in glimpses before, and he grabbed it with both hands. The film is the right length, and watching the brief prequels certainly did help me to fill in the blanks. I agree that the film appears to have been written with an eye to further sequels, though I'd be surprised if a film maker at the top of his game would want to go back to that world soon when there are so many other stories to tell.

The sex scene was rather creepy, but that might just be me. It was consensual, at least.

There are a few easter eggs for real nerds. One I picked up was Rick's reference to Treasure Island. That's the novel Holden is reading when Rick visits him in hospital in a scene deleted from the original film during editing.

No doubt Pale Fire has significance, but that's a notoriously slippery fish.

On the subject of literary allusions, Joe K. I saw that Kafka reference coming even before I saw the film.

There are countless references to the original film, perhaps most notably in K's "death" scene (though I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Ryan notReynolds back if there's a sequel.)

I still have no idea what the "major spoiler" that ruined somebody's enjoyment was. I got what I expected going in, in terms of plot. There's much more to a film than "X then Y and then quite out of the blue, you realise it was Z all along."

Member

I just got out. Villeneuve had the opportunity to flesh out a world we've only seen before in glimpses before, and he grabbed it with both hands. The film is the right length, and watching the brief prequels certainly did help me to fill in the blanks. I agree that the film appears to have been written with an eye to further sequels, though I'd be surprised if a film maker at the top of his game would want to go back to that world soon when there are so many other stories to tell.

The sex scene was rather creepy, but that might just be me. It was consensual, at least.

There are a few easter eggs for real nerds. One I picked up was Rick's reference to Treasure Island. That's the novel Holden is reading when Rick visits him in hospital in a scene deleted from the original film during editing.

No doubt Pale Fire has significance, but that's a notoriously slippery fish.

On the subject of literary allusions, Jo K. I saw that Kafka reference coming even before I saw the film.

There are countless references to the original film, perhaps most notably in K's "death" scene (though I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Ryan notReynolds back if there's a sequel.)

I still have no idea what the "major spoiler" that ruined somebody's enjoyment was. I got what I expected going in, in terms of plot. There's much more to a film than "X then Y and then quite out of the blue, you realise it was Z all along."

It was the twist that K was just a copy and that the Doctor was Deckard and Rachel's missing child instead. It hasn't ruined the film for me, but it's something that I genuinely wish I hadn't found out about in advance.

And yeah, I called K's name being a Kafka reference back in December last year when the initial synopsis was announced. Glad to see that they even went a bit further with it with the whole "Joe" pseudonym.

Member

The thing I don't really get in who is really K ? who created him ? he's supposed to be a clone of Deckard daughter but who created him ? Wallace company ? ( doubtful ), the rebellion ? ( probably but how ? do they have the technology and the people to do it ? ) it's really strange for me...

Member

It was the twist that K was just a copy and that the Doctor was Deckard and Rachel's missing child instead. It hasn't ruined the film for me, but it's something that I genuinely wish I hadn't found out about in advance.

Oh you were ahead of me anyway. Going in, I couldn't assume that there was a familial connection between Joe and Rick. Giving the possibility that there was one seemed like an idea that had legs, but it was only one of several possibilities I foresaw.

And yeah, I called K's name being a Kafka reference back in December last year when the initial synopsis was announced. Glad to see that they even went a bit further with it with the whole "Joe" pseudonym.

Sorry, yes what I meant was that I understood at the end the doctor was the child and her best memories were her real memories and K had them implanted.

What happened with me was this (I'm a bit deaf so what probably happened is that they explained it but I missed it) that K just went to Deckard I'll take you to your daughter and I was like oh - it's that girl - when did they explain / work that out? It came out of nowhere for me.

Member

Sorry, yes what I meant was that I understood at the end the doctor was the child and her best memories were her real memories and K had them implanted.

What happened with me was this (I'm a bit deaf so what probably happened is that they explained it but I missed it) that K just went to Deckard I'll take you to your daughter and I was like oh - it's that girl - when did they explain / work that out? It came out of nowhere for me.

Banned

Sorry, yes what I meant was that I understood at the end the doctor was the child and her best memories were her real memories and K had them implanted.

What happened with me was this (I'm a bit deaf so what probably happened is that they explained it but I missed it) that K just went to Deckard I'll take you to your daughter and I was like oh - it's that girl - when did they explain / work that out? It came out of nowhere for me.

He is a detective. All he did was connect the dots. First time he did that, he came to the conclusion he was a natural born replicant. As soon as he found out that he is not, he just connected the dots again and came to the correct conclusion, is my interpretation.

Member

The thing I don't really get in who is really K ? who created him ? he's supposed to be a clone of Deckard daughter but who created him ? Wallace company ? ( doubtful ), the rebellion ? ( probably but how ? do they have the technology and the people to do it ? ) it's really strange for me...

K's only connection with Deckard is the memory implant authored by Doctor Stelline (the woman in the bubble). I think the "clone" notion was K's initial interpretation of the duplicate DNA records. It turns out there was no male clone, the orphanage records were deliberately scrambled and she was dressed in blue (is that shorthand for her passing as a boy?). K was a recipient (perhaps one of many) of her memory of hiding the horse doll. He just happened to be the one who verified the memory as real.

Member

Not just the teensiest bit creepy? There are abundant clues that she's just a recreational AI following her programming. His last encounter with her is as an advertising come-on, aping the very phrases to which he had earlier attached such personal significance.

Member

K's only connection with Deckard is the memory implant authored by Doctor Stelline (the woman in the bubble). I think the "clone" notion was K's initial interpretation of the duplicate DNA records. It turns out there was no male clone, the orphanage records were deliberately scrambled and she was dressed in blue (is that shorthand for her passing as a boy?). K was a recipient (perhaps one of many) of her memory of hiding the horse doll. He just happened to be the one who verified the memory as real.

Banned

Not just the teensiest bit creepy? There are abundant clues that she's just a recreational AI following her programming. His last encounter with her is as an advertising come-on, aping the very phrases to which he had earlier attached such personal significance.

Eye candy, ego boosting fluff and male wish fulfilment. I thought that was signalled rather well, though I still found the threesome very creepy.

Fancher picked up on Philip K Dick's representation of the androids as rather childlike and one-dimensional. This is carried through in the characterization of his replicants in both films. A little animated sex doll is all they need to keep them happy.

Joi reminds me of the synthetic pet, Pyan, in Iain Banks' last culture novel. Though Pyan does at least have an independent intelligence of sorts.

Member

He is a detective. All he did was connect the dots. First time he did that, he came to the conclusion he was a natural born replicant. As soon as he found out that he is not, he just connected the dots again and came to the correct conclusion, is my interpretation.

Okay thanks guys. I was worried I'd not heard something - it was more that I'm not much of a detective and didn't put things together. It made sense it was her when we got to the end - I just didn't see it coming.

'Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.' Joi did love K - even if it was just her programming - to her it was real. I think K understood that. I really liked the bit when K's car was pulled down and crashed - Joi's glitching and calling his name was really well done.

Member

Eye candy, ego boosting fluff and male wish fulfilment. I thought that was signalled rather well, though I still found the threesome very creepy.

Fancher picked up on Philip K Dick's representation of the androids as rather childlike and one-dimensional. This is carried through in the characterization of his replicants in both films. A little animated sex doll is all they need to keep them happy.

Joi reminds me of the synthetic pet, Pyan, in Iain Banks' last culture novel. Though Pyan does at least have an independent intelligence of sorts.

Member

So just got out of the theatre. First of all the visuals and art direction are on point ! Like it looks exactly like Bladerunner eventhough it's made 30 years later. Very few movies achieve something like that and most just end up dropping the old look for a more contemporary look.

I knew that they were going with the "K is the child" angle even before it came up. But I sort of felt something was off considering how easy that was to guess and the fact that while it gets proven that his memories are real memories he never really asks if they are his own memories. And I kind of felt confused there as to why he wouldn't confirm that. Then ofcourse we find out that K was the copy.

Now I agree that it was a great twist and it works for the movie to give it a more poignant feel but I still somehow felt disappointed that our hero isn't the "prodigal son". This was further exaggerated by the fact that the real child is some random memory doctor woman that we see for like 10 minutes. Which is why I felt nothing during the scene when Deckard meets her. Still I think I'll warm up to it in the future. Although the replicant rebels saying that they all dreamed the dream just further confuses us and hints that K is just ordinary eventhough it's hinted well that he is the copy of Deckard's child (like when Deckard asks what he means to K, cause Deckard was unaware of the copy. And then K asnwers "All good memories were hers" which without context would just mean something general like she makes good memories for replicants instead of meaning that all of K's good memories were hers...since he is the copy)

Anyhow some questions:

what was Robin Wright trying to do? Was she trying to hide K's location? Did she know If was special and willing to die for him?

And Luv why was she crying when Wallace kills that replicant? Was she kind of special too in terms of individuality and consciousness? For a while I thought she was the replicant copy and K was the real deal despite what the replicant rebels said. Especially because of that comical "I'm the better one" line lol

And I chuckled when Wallace implied that Deckard might be a replicant. They're never letting that one go are the?

Member

Member

When they originally showed scenes from the Las Vegas area in the trailers and screenshots I thought it was from Mars. Was disappointed to find out Deckard was hiding just 270 miles from LA for 30 years instead of Mars.

Banned

Not just the teensiest bit creepy? There are abundant clues that she's just a recreational AI following her programming. His last encounter with her is as an advertising come-on, aping the very phrases to which he had earlier attached such personal significance.

Member

Member

Just got back from an IMAX showing. Was one of the best cinema experiences I've had in a while. The sound, visuals and atmosphere were electric.

As for the film itself, I'd put it at level with the original but with a few shortcomings that keep it from surpassing it. Namely the writing which I felt to be a bit heavy-handed at times, especially with the Wallace (?) scenes. It could have also done without some of the 'remember this?' flashbacks, but that's just a nitpick. A damn fine film nonetheless; all performances were great, as I said above the technical aspects were exemplary (Deakins being the GOAT as usual), and it sets up a sequel without going all cinematic universe on us. When 'Tears in Rain' started playing at the end I couldn't help but tear up, the film was good to not try and do a 'Tears in Rain' scene which would have more than likely ended in disaster.

Member

I really, really loved how less was more with this movie. It felt so surreal to go to an almost 3-hour long feature where it felt like a more prudish writer/director/editor/studio could've cut at least 30 minutes of footage off of the movie, and yet so much here is instead left lingering, adding emphasis to subtle visual cues, cinematography and atmosphere. The fact that this was such a non-wordy movie and yet so long in spite of that added onto how much of an oddity the entire movie is, and I think that vague nuance is something Villenueve gets so right when it comes to following up BLade Runner. Among so many haphazardly written elements, so many cuts that change the entire movie, the original Blade Runner still managed to become a legendary piece of work, and this is a movie where it feels like the creators understood exactly what it was about the original that worked, as they consciously built everything around that. On those terms, I wouldn't hesitate to say this is a much better movie than the first once you can get over the initial movie's legacy. I really do think "Godfather 2" is a wholly apt comparison here, mostly on the case that while some people will point at the original movie and say that one had the more "iconic" moments, the sequel could arguably be considered a much more effective, better piece of film making.

I really enjoyed the way the movie nailed how Deckard is incredibly pathetic as far as being an anti-hero goes. It takes all the questionable traits about him from the previous movies - particularly the tenuous relationship with Rachael - and puts them on display. Ryan Gosling as K is an inspired casting choice, I remember saying a year ago that he's the kind of actor who would perfectly be able to blur the line between human and replicant (in the case of the movie wanting to open up that bag of worms again), so I wasn't too surprised when it was almost immediately confirmed that he was the latter. His relationship with Joi is fantastic since it's equal parts charming and uncomfortable. I just really love how it's a movie that doesn't pretend to have all the answers, rather gives the audience something to think about, while still being able to round out some character stories in a satisfying way. Another "twist" I really loved was how Joshi actually looked out for K's best interest despite setting her up as being a hard-ass who was motivated to keep the Replicants/Humans divided. In spite of it's narrative, Blade Runner is at it's best when it's character driven. It gives just a smaller taste of what's beyond the scope of the original movie, but still keeps it modest.

In just about every way I think I'd be more eager to rewatch 2049 than the original. It's really damn good. Also I can't be the only one who thought Ryan Gosling was evoking his hardest Drive-impression by the time the final scenes rolled around. Like, literally, it felt like they looked at Drive for reference when they decided to figure out how to handle the finale lol.

Member

I went to see it today, I thought it was pretty good, you just have to 'fall into the movie' to get the best out of it, it does help if you have seen the first film, the audio and visual effects are outstanding and it has that same gritty look and feel of the first.

It is really a 'big screen' movie, I am not sure how it will translate on the small screen though.

Member

Maybe, but it seems like a very convoluted way of getting them together. Why have Deckard in a line of work where he might get killed if he is a special experimental replicant? Why not just put him and Rachael together in a normal environment somewhere?

Member

Loved it, definitely my favorite movie of the year. Almost three hours of pure cinematic joy.

Just some things that went over my head  what was up with the resistance? Their story purpose was to tell us that K isn't Deckard's son, but then they set him up to kill Deckard? And why was K so important for them to begin with? For all we know, he killed Dave Bautista's character, but they still decide to save him from the hotel.

Side note to that: How did Wallace's people find K and Deckard in the hotel? I thought it was because of the tracker that the prostitute hid in his coat, but that turned out to be the resistance.

Member

So I found out that David Bowie was originally the first choice to play Wallace, but he unfortunately passed away last year. I feel like he would've been great, perhaps better than Leto whose performance didn't really come off as strong as I expected.

Member

Loved it, definitely my favorite movie of the year. Almost three hours of pure cinematic joy.

Just some things that went over my head  what was up with the resistance? Their story purpose was to tell us that K isn't Deckard's son, but then they set him up to kill Deckard? And why was K so important for them to begin with? For all we know, he killed Dave Bautista's character, but they still decide to save him from the hotel.

Side note to that: How did Wallace's people find K and Deckard in the hotel? I thought it was because of the tracker that the prostitute hid in his coat, but that turned out to be the resistance.

Member

Loved it, definitely my favorite movie of the year. Almost three hours of pure cinematic joy.

Just some things that went over my head &#8211; what was up with the resistance? Their story purpose was to tell us that K isn't Deckard's son, but then they set him up to kill Deckard? And why was K so important for them to begin with? For all we know, he killed Dave Bautista's character, but they still decide to save him from the hotel.

I donno about the rest and would like to know myself why rebel people made it look like they all "had the dream" thereby implying that K wasn't special or a copy of Deckard's daughter.

But I can tell you why they wanted him to kill Deckard (and I only know this because I read the wiki, that scene was so obscure in the film), it's because they didn't want Wallace to find out how replicant reproduction works. How would Deckard know about it? I don't know ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ ....considering Tyrell was long dead before him and Rachel ran away

Member

I knew that they were going with the "K is the child" angle even before it came up. But I sort of felt something was off considering how easy that was to guess and the fact that while it gets proven that his memories are real memories he never really asks if they are his own memories. And I kind of felt confused there as to why he wouldn't confirm that. Then ofcourse we find out that K was the copy.

I agree - Once the memory doctor girl tells him that they are real memories, I was waiting for him to ask her if they were actually his own, or if they were implanted, but he doesn't. He just assumes that he's the one and goes off, but then this is kind of saved by the one-eyed replicant later stating that they all want to believe that they are "the one", and K got sucked in.

However, you're confusing me by referring to K as a 'copy'. What do you mean by that? I thought he was implanted with real memories of "the one" and that's it.

Now I agree that it was a great twist and it works for the movie to give it a more poignant feel but I still somehow felt disappointed that our hero isn't the "prodigal son". This was further exaggerated by the fact that the real child is some random memory doctor woman that we see for like 10 minutes. Which is why I felt nothing during the scene when Deckard meets her. Still I think I'll warm up to it in the future. Although the replicant rebels saying that they all dreamed the dream just further confuses us and hints that K is just ordinary eventhough it's hinted well that he is the copy of Deckard's child (like when Deckard asks what he means to K, cause Deckard was unaware of the copy. And then K asnwers "All good memories were hers" which without context would just mean something general like she makes good memories for replicants instead of meaning that all of K's good memories were hers...since he is the copy)

Again with the copy!?!? Are you referring to when K discovers the duplicate DNA records? Wasn't this just proof to show that Deckard (or whoever) hid "the one" by making the hunters/Niander Wallace believe that they would be searching for a boy? K discovers (in the records) that a girl died, but a boy is alive with the same DNA, and so then assumes he's the special one, but doesn't realise the actual truth until the one-eyed replicant woman later reveals that the real child is a girl. Atleast that's what I assumed. Was it actually his own DNA that he was looking at? I'm a bit confused here. Refresh my memory on this scene please as I don't even remember what lead up to it.

1- what was Robin Wright trying to do? Was she trying to hide K's location? Did she know If was special and willing to die for him?

2 - And Luv why was she crying when Wallace kills that replicant? Was she kind of special too in terms of individuality and consciousness? For a while I thought she was the replicant copy and K was the real deal despite what the replicant rebels said. Especially because of that comical "I'm the better one" line lol

3 - And I chuckled when Wallace implied that Deckard might be a replicant. They're never letting that one go are the?

Banned

Maybe, but it seems like a very convoluted way of getting them together. Why have Deckard in a line of work where he might get killed if he is a special experimental replicant? Why not just put him and Rachael together in a normal environment somewhere?

Member

I feel like never really bought that K was the child. I mean, I could read it on him that he himself might have thought that but I as a viewer never believed that. And so when the reveal came that he was not the special child, it didn't have an effect on me welp.

I also didn't read that ending as K dying, but more him deciding to rest up lol.